Tiger won't connect to OS 9 computers unless...

[Ozymandias]

... you enable TCP/IP filesharing on the OS 9 computer. Otherwise, it'll throw up the error: "The file server uses an incompatible version of the AFP protocol. You cannot connect to it." However, you still can, even though Apple dropped Apple Talk in Tiger, for reasons unknown. Here's a guide to turn on TCP/IP filesharing (just follow step 2: Activate TCP/IP support for file sharing) and then you should be OK. I wish Apple had an easy to find guide to do this, but they stand by their word that you cannot connect to the OS 9 computer. Way to go Apple!

 

[gigglebyte]

I hate to say it but when you look at OSs in the computer world...how long should they be cross compatible? OSX has been out for 4 years now...how long should Apple make fixes in the new OS just to make sure it talks to an obsolete one?

 

[Ozymandias]

It'd be an undertstandable oversight if those older computers could run a version of OS X, but they can't. I think it's just one of Apple's subtle hints that every Mac in a company or home should be running OS X, and if it can't, junk it. Well, those old machines still have some life in them yet, and they're just fine for completing many tasks in my work place (ie, 2 print servers, dedicated scanner computer, dedicated Quark machine, and a record storing computer). We don't need to spend thousands of dollars to get new Macs so they can do the same, simple thing slightly faster if the older solutions are working just fine.

I hate to bring it up, but XP is still cross-compatible Windows 98, which is about 7 years old and not supported by Microsoft anymore. I think Apple should have done with Tiger what MS did with Windows 98 (in regards to network protocols only!)- installed, by default, the protocol preferred by the older generation (Apple Talk for Macs, NetBEUI for Windows), the protocol of the current generation (TCP/IP in Apple's case, MS used IPX/SPX), and the probable protocol for the next generation (TCP/IP in Win 98, ? in Tiger). As a result, Windows 98 is compatible with 3.1, 95, and XP, which makes life easier for the consumer. How hard could it have been for Apple to leave Panther's networking alone while designing Tiger? I know that it would've made lots of people's lives easier, because they don't have to hunt through settings to get stuff to work. Ease of use is one of Apple's big selling points, isn't it?

 

[KaosDG]

It'd be an undertstandable oversight if those older computers could run a version of OS X, but they can't. I think it's just one of Apple's subtle hints that every Mac in a company or home should be running OS X, and if it can't, junk it. Well, those old machines still have some life in them yet, and they're just fine for completing many tasks in my work place (ie, 2 print servers, dedicated scanner computer, dedicated Quark machine, and a record storing computer). We don't need to spend thousands of dollars to get new Macs so they can do the same, simple thing slightly faster if the older solutions are working just fine.

I hate to bring it up, but XP is still cross-compatible Windows 98, which is about 7 years old and not supported by Microsoft anymore. I think Apple should have done with Tiger what MS did with Windows 98 (in regards to network protocols only!)- installed, by default, the protocol preferred by the older generation (Apple Talk for Macs, NetBEUI for Windows), the protocol of the current generation (TCP/IP in Apple's case, MS used IPX/SPX), and the probable protocol for the next generation (TCP/IP in Win 98, ? in Tiger). As a result, Windows 98 is compatible with 3.1, 95, and XP, which makes life easier for the consumer. How hard could it have been for Apple to leave Panther's networking alone while designing Tiger? I know that it would've made lots of people's lives easier, because they don't have to hunt through settings to get stuff to work. Ease of use is one of Apple's big selling points, isn't it?

I really hate saying this but backwards compatibility severely limits innovation.

Also, to be perfectly honest with you the TCP/IP option is very easy to find. (I should know, I had a client base with OS9 computers and Windows / unix servers. the only protocol on my networks are TCP/IP)

That error message is not saying "You can't connect to OS9 AT ALL" It's saying you can't connect using AFP.

 

[Ozymandias]

Also, to be perfectly honest with you the TCP/IP option is very easy to find. (I should know, I had a client base with OS9 computers and Windows / unix servers. the only protocol on my networks are TCP/IP)

Yes, it is, once you know how to solve the problem. However, the average user isn't going to think once they get that error, "Oh, all I have to do is enable TCP/IP in the File Sharing control panel." They're just going to scratch their heads, surf over to the Apple website, and they might find this unhelpful page.

I really hate saying this but backwards compatibility severely limits innovation.

In this case, I don't think Apple did anything radically innovative with networking, so they could have it left backwards compatible without worrying. Besides, how innovative can you be with networking? You still have to use the same protocols as everyone else. For instance, Apple could have been innovative with Tiger, and invented a whole new network protocol. Said protocol would allow for faster and more consistent performance with lower CPU overhead, but, it's not compatible at all with TCP/IP, which is absent from the OS. Well, good job on being innovative, but now your user base can't even connect to the Internet or 95% of computers out there (yes, those Windows ones). Innovation isn't a thing you do in isolation in software or hardware- either everyone does it or no one does, and it becomes a useless feature.

 

[KaosDG]

Yes, it is, once you know how to solve the problem. However, the average user isn't going to think once they get that error, "Oh, all I have to do is enable TCP/IP in the File Sharing control panel." They're just going to scratch their heads, surf over to the Apple website, and they might find this unhelpful page.



In this case, I don't think Apple did anything radically innovative with networking, so they could have it left backwards compatible without worrying. Besides, how innovative can you be with networking? You still have to use the same protocols as everyone else. For instance, Apple could have been innovative with Tiger, and invented a whole new network protocol. Said protocol would allow for faster and more consistent performance with lower CPU overhead, but, it's not compatible at all with TCP/IP, which is absent from the OS. Well, good job on being innovative, but now your user base can't even connect to the Internet or 95% of computers out there (yes, those Windows ones). Innovation isn't a thing you do in isolation in software or hardware- either everyone does it or no one does, and it becomes a useless feature.

You are contradicting yourself with your posts.

The "average" user more than likely won't be using filesharing in the sense that you are talking about.
Average users are home users that probably only have one computer, or work users that have a dedicated system / network admin to figure all of this out.
You are complaining because you don't want to upgrade your legacy server systems to tiger. well guess what? Thems the breaks. It's a simple work-around *if you know where to look*
Average users can't be bothered with it. So either they will do away with legacy or call someone like you.

Imagine having been in a financial institution where the backend all ran on SNA, and your desktops all ran on netbeui.
Now get all your front end users onto the backend, without touching the backend. See what I mean?

As far as my innovation comment, that was a very broad statement. Not directed toward apple or msft.
But at the industry. Look at the x86 instruction set for example.
By intel constantly "extending" the instruction set, it leaves little room for innovation.
What happened when they tried something new? (Epic) It practically failed. miserably.

Personally I think that an app written in 1980 has no business running on a modern processor.

If apple did a proprietary protocol, they'd be in the same place as they were with AFP.

 

[Ozymandias]

Average users are home users that probably only have one computer, or work users that have a dedicated system / network admin to figure all of this out.

Naturally, there are exceptions. On the Apple forums, there was one guy whose camera software only worked with OS 9, but he liked to touch them up on his new Tiger machine, and he had the same problem. There are companies that run without a system/network admin (like the one I'm interning at right now). We just have one guy (two if you count me, I guess) who's knownledgeable with computers, but he also has his own work to do. He's not a full time admin, and he can't come running whenever someone has a problem.

Average users can't be bothered with it. So either they will do away with legacy or call someone like you.

True, true. It kind of pisses me off though, because people think that legacy=crap (or useless). They're not! You could at least give them to me, so I could set them folding.

As far as my innovation comment, that was a very broad statement. Not directed toward apple or msft.
But at the industry. Look at the x86 instruction set for example.
By intel constantly "extending" the instruction set, it leaves little room for innovation.
What happened when they tried something new? (Epic) It practically failed. miserably

Innovation isn't a thing you do in isolation in software or hardware- either everyone does it or no one does and it becomes a useless feature.

We agree. I was just using Apple as an example, since it pertained most to the discussion.